Skip to main content Accesibility Help
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 5
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Wintersieck, Amanda Fridkin, Kim and Kenney, Patrick 2018. The Message Matters: The Influence of Fact-Checking on Evaluations of Political Messages. Journal of Political Marketing, p. 1.

    Almohammad, Asaad H. 2016. Toward a Theory of Political Emotion Causation. SAGE Open, Vol. 6, Issue. 3, p. 215824401666210.

    Krupnikov, Yanna Piston, Spencer and Bauer, Nichole M. 2016. Saving Face: Identifying Voter Responses to Black Candidates and Female Candidates. Political Psychology, Vol. 37, Issue. 2, p. 253.

    Däubler, Thomas Bräuninger, Thomas and Brunner, Martin 2016. Is Personal Vote-Seeking Behavior Effective?. Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, Issue. 2, p. 419.

    Gibson, James L. Lodge, Milton and Woodson, Benjamin 2014. Losing, but Accepting: Legitimacy, Positivity Theory, and the Symbols of Judicial Authority. Law & Society Review, Vol. 48, Issue. 4, p. 837.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 2011
  • Online publication date: June 2012

11 - Conscious and Unconscious Information Processing with Implications for Experimental Political Science

Summary

Affect-driven dual process models dominate contemporary psychological theorizing about how people think, reason, and decide (Chaiken and Trope 1999; Wilson, Lindsey, and Schooler 2000; Gawronski and Bodenhausen 2006). Although most dual process models focus on accuracy-efficiency trade-offs, hundreds of more recent experiments document the pervasive effects of unconscious thoughts, feelings, and behaviors on attitude formation, attitude change, preferences, and decision making. These studies reveal important differences between the influence of conscious and unconscious processing on how people think and reason. The explicit incorporation of unconscious cognition into models of political beliefs challenges the extant understanding of mass beliefs. Much of what we political scientists claim to know about citizens' political beliefs and attitudes is based on verbal self-reports. The vast majority of the empirical evidence in political behavior research is based directly on verbal responses to explicit questions. This reliance on explicit measures of political attitudes and behaviors is problematic because these measures assume people have direct access to their “true” beliefs or attitudes and are willing and able to accurately report them (Wittenbrink 2007).

Most of our daily life is experienced unconsciously, outside awareness. Consequently, it is quixotic to focus exclusively on conscious attitudes while ignoring considerations that escape conscious awareness. Recent estimates put the total human capacity for visual sensory processing in the neighborhood of 10 million bits per second, even though we can become conscious of only about 40 bits per second (Norretranders 1998).

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science
  • Online ISBN: 9780511921452
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921452
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×
References
Aarts, Henk, and Dijksterhuis, Ap. 2000. “Habits as Knowledge Structures: Automaticity in Goal-Directed Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78: 53–63.
Abelson, Robert. 1963. “Computer Simulation of ‘Hot’ Cognition.” In Computer Simulation of Personality, eds. Tomkins, Silvan and Messick, Samuel. New York: Wiley, 227–98.
Amodio, David M., and Devine, Patricia G.. 2006. “Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91: 652–61.
Anderson, John R. 1983. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, John R. 1993. Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, Norman H., and Barrios, Alfred A.. 1961. “Primacy Effects in Person Impression Formation.” Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 43: 346–50.
Bargh, John A. 1997. “The Automaticity of Everyday Life.” In Advances in Social Cognition,Volume X: The Automaticity of Everyday Life, Advances in Social Cognition Series, ed. Wyer, Jr Robert S.. London: Psychology Press, 1–62.
Bargh, John A. 1999. “The Cognitive Monster: The Case against Controllability of Automatic Stereotype Effects.” In Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, eds. Chaiken, Shelley and Trope, Yaacov. New York: Guilford Press, 361–82.
Bargh, John A., Chaiken, Shelley, Govender, Rajen, and Pratto, Felicia. 1992. “The Generality of the Automatic Attitude Activation Effect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62: 893–912.
Bargh, John A., Chen, Mark, and Burrows, Lara. 1996. “Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 230–44.
Bargh, John A., and Pietromonaco, Paula. 1982. “Automatic Information Processing and Social Perception: The Influence of Trait Information Presented Outside of Conscious Awareness on Impression Formation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43: 437–49.
Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul, and McPhee, William. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Berger, Jonah, Meredith, Marc, and Wheeler, S. Christian. 2008. “Contextual Priming: Where People Vote Affects How They Vote.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 8846–9.
Betsch, Tilman, Plessner, Henning, Schwieren, Christine, and Gutig, Robert. 2001. “I Like It but I Don't Know Why: A Value Account Approach to Implied Attitude Formation.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27: 242–53.
Black, Duncan. 1948. “On the Rationale of Group Decision Making.” Journal of Political Economy 56: 23–34.
Cassino, Dan, and Lodge, Milton. 2007. “The Primacy of Affect in Political Evaluations.” In The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior, eds. Newman, W. Russell, Marcus, George E., Crigler, Ann N., and MacKuen, Michael. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 101–23.
Chaiken, Shelly, and Maheswaran, Durairaj. 1994. “Heuristic Processing Can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66: 460–73.
Chaiken, Shelley, and Trope, Yaacov. 1999. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Collins, Allan M., and Loftus, Elizabeth F.. 1975. “A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing.” Psychological Review 82: 407–28.
Collins, Allan M., and Quillian, M. Ross. 1969. “Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8: 240–47.
Conover, Pamela J., and Feldman, Stanley. 1984. “How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model.” American Journal of Political Science 28: 95–126.
Cunningham, William, Preacher, Kristopher, and Banaji, Mahzarin. 2001. “Implicit Attitude Measures: Consistency, Stability, and Convergent Validity.” Psychological Science 1: 163–70.
Deutsch, Roland, and Gawronski, Bertram. 2009. “When the Method Makes a Difference: Antagonistic Effects on ‘Automatic Evaluations as a Function of Task Characteristics of the Measure.’Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45: 101–14.
Dijksterhuis, Ap. 2004. “Think Different: The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Preference Development and Decision Making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87: 586–98.
Dovidio, John, Kawakami, Kerry, and Gaertner, Samuel. 2002. “Implicit and Explicit Prejudice and Interracial Interaction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82: 62–8.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Eagly, Alice H., Ashmore, Richard D., Makhijani, Mona G., and Longo, Laura C.. 1991. “What Is Beautiful Is Good, but…: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype.” Psychological Bulletin 110: 109–29.
Erisen, Cengiz, Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles. 2007. “The Role of Affect in Political Deliberation.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
Fazio, Russell, Sanbonmatsu, David, Powell, Martha, and Kardes, Frank. 1986. “On the Automatic Activation of Attitudes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 229–38.
Feingold, Alan. 1992. “Good-looking People Are Not What We Think.” Psychological Bulletin 111: 304-41.
Gawronski, Bertram, and Bodenhausen, Galen V.. 2006. “Associative and Propositional Processes in Evaluation: An Integrative Review of Implicit and Explicit Attitude Change.” Psychological Bulletin 132: 692–731.
Greenwald, Anthony G., McGhee, Debbie E., and Schwartz, Jordan L. K.. 1998. “Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 1464–80.
Hastie, Reid, and Park, Bernadette. 1986. “The Relationship between Memory and Judgment Depends on Whether the Judgment Task Is Memory-Based or On-Line.” Psychological Review 93: 258–68.
Ito, Tiffany, and Cacioppo, John. 2005. “Attitudes as Mental States of Readiness: Using Physiological Measures to Study Implicit Attitudes.” In Implicit Measures of Attitudes, eds. Wittenbrink, Bernd and Schwartz, Norbert. New York: Guilford Press, 125–58.
Kim, Sung-youn, Taber, Charles, and Lodge, Milton. 2009. “A Computational Model of the Citizen as Motivated Reasoner: Modeling the Dynamics of the 2000 Presidential Election.” Political Behavior 32: 1–28.
Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn M.. 1996. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Langlios, Judith, Kalakanis, Lisa, Rubenstein, Adam, Larson, Andrea, Hallam, Monica, and Smoot, Monica. 2000. “Maxims or Myths of Beauty? A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review.” Psychological Bulletin 126: 390–423.
Lau, Richard, and Redlawsk, David. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 951–71.
Lavine, Howard, Lodge, Milton, Polichak, Jamie, and Taber, Charles. 2002. “Explicating the Black Box through Experimentation: Studies of Authoritarianism and Threat.” Political Analysis 10: 342–60.
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles. 2005. “The Automaticity of Affect for Political Leaders, Groups, and Issues: An Experimental Test of the Hot Cognition Hypothesis.” Political Psychology 26: 455–82.
Lodge, Milton, Steenbergen, Marco, and Brau, Shawn. 1995. “The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 89: 309–26.
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88: 63–76.
Maison, Dominika, Greenwald, Anthony G., and Bruin, Ralph H.. 2004. “Predictive Validity of the Implicit Association Test in Studies of Brands, Consumer Attitudes, and Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 14: 405–15.
McGraw, Kathleen, and Steenbergen, Marco. 1995. “Pictures in the Head: Memory Representations of Political Candidates.” In Political Judgment: Structure and Process, eds. Lodge, Milton and McGraw, Kathleen. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 15–42.
Mendelberg, Tali. 2001. The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages and the Norm of Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Miller, George. 1957. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.” Psychological Review 63: 81–97.
Mitchell, Jason, Nosek, Brian, and Banaji, Mahzarin. 2003. “Contextual Variations in Implicit Evaluation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132: 455–69.
Monroe, Brian M., and Read, Stephen J.. 2008. “A General Connectionist Model of Attitude Structure and Change: The ACS (Attitudes as Constraint Satisfaction) Model.” Psychological Review 115: 733–59.
Neely, James. 1977. “Semantic Priming and Retrieval from Lexical Memory: Roles of Inhibitionless Spreading Activation and Limited Capacity Attention.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 106: 226–54.
Norretranders, Tor. 1998. The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size. New York:Penguin Press.
Nosek, Brian A. 2005. “Moderators of the Relationship between Implicit and Explicit Evaluation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 134: 565–84.
Olson, Michael, and Fazio, Russell. 2004. “Reducing the Influence of Extrapersonal Associations on the Implicit Association Test.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86: 654–67.
Payne, Keith, Cheng, Clara, Govorun, Olesya, and Stewart, Brandon. 2005. “An Inkblot for Attitudes: Affect Misattribution as Implicit Measurement.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89: 277–93.
Posner, Michael, Snyder, Charles, and Davidson, Brian. 1980. “Facilitation and Inhibition in the Processing of Signals.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 109: 160–74.
Rahn, Wendy, Krosnick, Jon, and Breuning, Marijke. 1994. “Rationalization and Derivation Processes in Survey Studies of Candidate Evaluation.” American Journal of Political Science 38: 582–600.
Redlawsk, David P. 2001. “You Must Remember This: A Test of the On-Line Model of Voting.” Journal of Politics 63: 29–58.
Rosenberg, Shawn, and McCafferty, Patrick. 1987. “The Image and the Vote: Manipulating Voter's Preferences.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 31–47.
Steenbergen, Marco, and Lodge, Milton. 2003. “Process Matters: Cognitive Models of Candidate Evaluation.” In Electoral Democracy, eds. MacKuen, Michael and Rabinowitz, George. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 125–71.
Swanson, Jane E., Rudman, Laurie, and Greenwald, Anthony G.. 2001. “Using the Implicit Association Test to Investigate Attitude-Behaviour Consistency for Stigmatised Behavior.” Cognition & Emotion 15: 207–30.
Taber, Charles. 2009. “Principles of Color: Implicit Race, Ideology, and Opposition to Race-Conscious Policies.” Unpublished paper, Stony Brook University.
Verhulst, Brad, Lodge, Milton, and Lavine, Howard. 2010. “The Attractiveness Halo: Why Some Candidates Are Perceived More Favorably Than Others.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 34: 111–17.
Verhulst, Brad, Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles. 2007. “Automatic Projection: How Incidental Affect Alters the Perceptions of Political Candidates.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Wilson, Timothy D., Hodges, Sarah D., and LaFleur, S. J.. 1995. “Effects of Introspecting about Reasons: Inferring Attitudes from Accessible Thoughts.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69: 16–28.
Wilson, Timothy D., Lindsey, Samuel, and Schooler, Tonya Y.. 2000. “A Model of Dual Attitudes.” Psychological Review 107: 101–26.
Wilson, Timothy D., and Schooler, Jonathan W.. 1991. “Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60: 181–92.
Wittenbrink, Bernd. 2007. “Measuring Attitudes through Priming.” In Implicit Measures of Attitudes, eds. Wittenbrink, Bernd and Schwartz, Norbert. New York: Guilford Press, 17–58.
Zajonc, Robert. 1980. “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences.” American Psychologist 35: 117–23.
Zaller, John, and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 579–616.